' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This Civil Revision is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 10-5-2005, whereby the appeal filed by respondents No,1(i) to (ix) against the judgment and decree dated 28-3-1995 was accepted.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the lis at hand are that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No,(i) to (ix) namely Sakina Bibi filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief to call into question a General Power of Attorney dated 10-2-1991 purportedly executed by the said predecessor of responde is No,(i) to (ix) namely Sakina Bibi in favour of respondent No,2 'ongwith all documents executed in pursuance thereof. On the basis of the aforesaid General Power of Attorney, respondent No,2 had executed a sale-deed in respect of the property in dispute in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners. It was the case of the plaintiff-Sakina Bibi that General Power of Attorney was the result of fraud and misrepresentation. The suit was resisted.
On the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, evidence was led, whereafter the trial court, seized of the matter, vide its judgment dated 28-3-1993, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, respondents No,1(i) to (ix) filed an appeal which was accepted, vide the impugned appellate judgment and decree dated 10-5-2005 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the suit was decreed in favour of respondents No,1-(i) to (iv). The appellate judgment and decree dated 10-5-2005 has been challenged through the instant revision petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioners and respondents No,1-(i) to (ix) have been heard and record perused.
Respondent No,2 despite service did not enter appearance, hence was proceeded ex parte by this Court, vide order dated 25-11-2009.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is evident from the plaint that the factum of execution of General Power of Attorney is not disputed and it is contended that the thumb impression/signature thereupon had been obtained through misrepresentation. The contentions in the plaint have not been supported by the witnesses produced by respondents No,1(i) to (ix), who in their evidence had set up a different story. P.W.1, Muhammad Aslam Malik in his statement stated that respondent No, 2 had apparently told him that he had obtained the thumb- impression of Sakina Bibi while she was allegedly unconscious. The said statement is not only contrary to the pleadings but also hearsay. Furthermore, Sakina Bibi entered the witness box as P.W.2 and did not raise any issue about her unconsciousness at the time of execution of the General Power of Attorney. She did not even support the contentions in the plaint but merely stated that she had not given any Power of Attorney to respondent No,2. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the General Power of Attorney is a registered document, therefore, there is a presumption of truth attached thereto and said presumption has not been displaced through cogent evidence. Adds that respondent No,2 the Attorney was the son-iii-law of Sakina Bibi-the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No,(i) to (ix) and it has been admitted by the witnesses produced on behalf of Sakina Bibi that at the time of execution of the Power of Attorney, the relationship between respondent No,2 and his wife as well as with the predecessor- in-interest of respondents No,(i) to (ix) were cordial. In the above perspective, the learned counsel contends that the impugned judgment and decree is the result of misreading, non-reading of evidence and misapplication of law. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel places reliance on the judgments reported as: Mirza Muhammad Sharif and 2 others v. Mst. Nawab Bibi and 4 others (1993 SCMR 462); Messrs Dadabhoy Cement Industries Ltd. And 6 others v. National Development Finance Corporation, Karachi (PLD 2002 SC 500); Pakistan Banking Council and another v. Ali Maohtaram Naqvi and others (1985 SCMR 714) and Khalil-ur-Rehman v. Mst. Halim Khatoon (PLD 2001 Lahore 63).
5. The learned counsel for respondents No,1-(i) to (ix) has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is further contended that the plaintiff Sakina Bibi-the predecessor- ininterest of the said respondents was an illiterate lady and the documents in question had been executed without proper legal advice. Adds that the General Power of Attorney was not proved in evidence as both the attesting witnesses were not produced. Further contends that the onus was upon the beneficiaries of the transaction to prove the same and such onus has not been discharged. Further contends that in fact it was not a case of General Power, of Attorney simpliciter but of the alleged agreement to sell having allegedly been executed by Sakina Bibi in favour of respondent No,2 on the same date and, therefore, the entire evidence had to be examined in the above perspective. Further contends that the relationship between respondent No,2 and his wife were strained, hence there could be no occasion for appointing him as an attorney. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgments reported as: Mst Raj Bibi and others v. Province of Punjab through District Collector, Okara and 5 others (2001 SCMR 1591); Jannat Bibi v. Sikandar Ali and others (PLD 1990 SC 642); Qazi Muhammad Saqib Khan v. Ghulam Abbas and 2 others (2003 MLD 131); Faiz Muhammad through legal representatives and others v. Mst. Khurshid Bibi (PLD 2009 Lahore 41); and Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1).
6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that since the document i,e, the General Power of Attorney was a registered document, therefore, there was no need to produce both the attesting witnesses. Adds that the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners had purchased the property against valuable consideration from a person who was possessed of the General Power of Attorney duly attested in accordance with law.
7. A perusal of the record reveals that in fact there is a General Power of Attorney purportedly executed by Sakina Bibi-the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No,(i) to (ix) in favour of respondent No,2. The said document is on record as Ex.DW-1/1. There is also an agreement to sell of the same date also purportedly executed by Sakina Bibi in favour of respondent No,2 which is also on record as DW-1/2. In terms of the said agreement, Sakina Bibi had allegedly agreed to sell the property in dispute to respondent No,2 for a consideration which is alleged to have been substantially received. There is also a receipt for the alleged balance consideration which is on record as DW-1/3. The said receipt is also purported to have been executed by Sakina Bibi in favour of respondent No,2.
8. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear and obvious that the instant case is not of the General Power of Attorney simpliciter but is of a transaction including an agreement to sell regarding the same property and the payment of consideration. Thus, in fact, allegedly valuable rights of Sakina Bibi are alleged to have been transferred to respondent No, 2 .
9. It is also an admitted fact on the record that Sakina Bibi was a widow and an illiterate old *lady.
None of the documents, referred to above, was witnessed by any of her male relatives i,e, her sons.
It is not the case of either of the parties nor is present in evidence that Sakina Bibi had any independent legal advice at the time of said transaction transferring her valuable rights of the property in dispute to respondent No,2. The so-called attesting witnesses are also not related to Sakina Bibi and appear to be strangers. The passing of consideration for the transaction appears to be allegedly by way of cash and appears to he suspicious. Furthermore, the General Power of Attorney was registered through a local commission but the said local commission was never produced in evidence. Respondent No,2 the so-called Attorney is the son-in-law of Sakina Bibi. It is evident that his relationship with his wife were far from cordial. There is also evidence of litigation in between the spouses. Furthermore, the stamp paper on which the Power of Attorney written was allegedly purchased by an Advocate who also did not enter the witness box. In the above circumstances, where valuable rights are transferred and the executant is an almost illiterate old widow and there is no evidence for independent legal advice or support of any male relative, such transaction upon its denial cannot be upheld. I am supported by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Jannat Bibi v. Sikandar Ali and others (PLD 1990 SC 642).
10. In this view of the matter, the contradictions in the evidence relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners pales into insignificance and cannot justify the dismissal of the suit. The beneficiaries of the transaction had to prove that the same had been entered into with the free consent of Sakina Bibi and the requisite transparency is conspicuous by its absence. In view of the above, the first appellate court has correctly returned the finding that the transaction and the documents are not the result of free-will of Sakina Bibi and cannot be upheld. No exception can be taken to the impugned judgment and decree which does not suffer from any illegality or exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise or its revisional jurisdiction. This Civil Revision is without any merit and is dismissed without any order of costs.